From 62 throught 68 there were 10 teams in each league (from 61 in the American League), so there were quite a few teams destined for finish waaaay at the bottom every year. Of course today teams finish just as far behind the leaders, they're just aren't as many teams in between.

'69 was the first year of division champs playing for the right(s) to play in World Series, '69 saw O's beat Twins, and Mets over the Braves, both series was 3-0 sweep.

Phony Benoni vs. Poof, the Midget Dragon

<1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6>

I'm usually lost at this point, but hey, it's only rating points. And it's FICS, so they're not even real rating points.

<6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 Nc6 8.Qd2 0-0 9.0-0-0 Bd7 10.h4 Qa5 11.Nb3>

I needed to get some water and take a pill, so figured it was time to make him think for at least 30 seconds.

<11...Qc7>

click for larger view

I have no idea if this is best, but was already getting nasty ideas. Play h5, Bh6, trade the bishops, then Nd5 hitting his queen and the protective ♘f6. Sort of a Siberian trap.

<12.h5 Nxh5 13.g4 Nf6 14.Bh6 Be6>

He saw it too, though, but the thought is what counts.

<15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Qh6+ Kg8>

click for larger view

Having finished the water, I now needed to indulge in another time-consuming activity and needed a totally confusing move. Soundness was not necessary.

<17.Rd5!?>

Well, of course he can't take the rook right now, but it took him enough time to figuire that out for me to finish my pressing business elsewhere.

<17...Ne5 18.Nd4 Rfc8>

click for larger view

Black also knows the meaning of the word checkmate. Since I have a proclivity to fall for stuff like that, I decided it was time to get sacrificial on him before I actually did blunder.

<19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.Rxe5!? dxe5 21.g5 Nh5 22.Rxh5 gxh5 23.g6 hxg6 24.Qxg6+ Kf8 25.Qh6+>

click for larger view

And now either 25...Ke8 or 25...Kf7 leave White with no more than a perpetual. Unfortunately, poor Poof overlooked that White's bishop had an alternate means of ingress.

<25...Kg8?? 26.Bh3! Kf7 27.Bxe6+ Ke8 28.Qh8#>

Thanks for doing that work and sharing it on the "Rossolimo death tie" saga.

You should submit that to Edward Winter eh?

Particularly since the person arguably most responsible for spreading that rumor was <Koltanowski>, I'm looking at his woefully inaccurate version of that story right now in "Chessnicdotes."

I bet Winter would print your research on this, he hates <Kolty> even more than <Schiller, Soltis, and Keene> for their cavalier attitude to chess history.

But Winter saves the special place in chess historian hell for <Larry Evans>.

My favorite was Larry actually printing "on page whatever" as a source in one of his articles.

I think that was Schiller who wrote "...as Gabe relates (on page whatever)..." And that whole review had me ROFL.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

<Recycling old trash into new trash is a notorious book-spawning trick of Keene’s, and for this co-production it merely involves changing any uses of ‘I’ to ‘we’. In a Spassky game, another unattributed rehash from the Pergamon book, the pronominal change is duly made on page 167, but overleaf ‘in my opinion’ has been left untouched, and it all descends into farce on page 74 (Alekhine-Reshevsky, Kemeri, 1937). After 23 h3, the ‘I’ has been pluralized (‘Here Alekhine has a note we like very much …’), but unfortunately the quoted words of Alekhine include the remark, ‘I was not a little surprised to read …’. No medals for guessing the upshot: yes, Alekhine’s ‘I’ has also become ‘we’. For good measure, there is another typo (‘to the questioned’) two lines further on in the Alekhine quote. Only Keene and Schiller can make copying look so difficult.>

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

Found the one I wanted. It was Schiller who used the <on page whatever> as well as the rest of these:

<On page 35 we read ‘The armies are at equal strength’, but this refers to a position in which Black is a rook ahead.

Page 167 claims that in 1895 Lasker was ‘on his way to the World Championship’

A specimen from page 343: ‘What on earth is going on here. White is giving away the store! Let’s see, Black has an extra rook, worth five clams or whatever, and can eat another one at a1. Must be winning, right?’

According to the chart on page 408, a typical ‘International Grandmaster’ is likely to have an Elo rating of 2800 (200 points more than ‘World Class Grandmasters’), and the figure given for an International Master is 2000.>

Probably important to keep track of people we're slandering.

Agree whole heartedly on "The Good Winter."

I just purchased his <Capablanca> book two days ago so I now have a full set of all his publications.

My taste runs very strongly toward the positive. Too often, it seems that being excessively negative just encourages the other side to solidify their position and escalate the conflict. Soon, neither side can abandon the argument without the other being perceived as the "winner", so it drags on beyond all reason or resolution.

There's more to see and do in the world of chess, even on a site like this, than can be accomplished in ten lifetimes. Personally, I don't have much of my only one left, and try to stay away from those conflicts which seem unnecessary, futile, and distasteful.

It would be better if he weren't so gleeful in pointing out mistakes, and it does tend to get people's backs up.

However, I submit that the fault lies 100% with those he criticizes when it comes to escalation.

When a chess historian has a mistake pointed out, there's only one honorable move. Just one.

Check to make sure it is really a mistake, and if it is,

1. At the very least admit it. You don't even need to say "I'm sorry" or "Doh!". You do need to admit it, however. That's simple academic standard for any discipline.

2. Second, where possible, rectify it. This isn't always possible particularly with print editions, but Winter has pointed out more than a few mistakes that were simply carried forward into new editions of a given work, when there clearly was opportunity to correct them.

Failure to do one and/or two has no defence. None. Zero.

Some chess historians have contributed much, despite sloppiness. Everyone makes mistakes.

But all too often, historians such as Mr. Schiller, Mr. Keene, and other favorite targets respond incorrectly when their mistakes are pointed out.

They don't admit it, even when they are plainly wrong.

Instead, they brag about their achievements and attempt to discredit Mr. Winter.

That just makes them look silly, vain, and petty.

Which they are, when they do that.

Granted, Mr. Winter provokes- but the solution is simple. Do the right thing. Check to see if it's a mistake, and if so, admit it and correct if possible.

Let me tell you, though, that Cam Newton looks like the real thing. The guy is a walking two-point conversion.